was not communication to the Respondent that her request was rejected. It was incumbent upon the Petitioner's Counsel to inform the Respondent that HUD declined her request to repurchase the premises and that the negotiation had concluded.
There was no proof that a proper notice of eviction was served or that a Marshal properly executed the warrant of eviction since the process server did not have any knowledge of the same. No other witnesses were produced to show proper service of the notice of eviction and execution of the warrant of eviction.
[*5]
The Petitioner's Attorney, Mr. Battista, was disingenuous throughout this proceeding. His application on June 23 for more time to turn over the keys was a ruse to avoid compliance with the Court's Order. His application on July 1 for a continuance to July 12 to produce witnesses was deliberate to prolong the hearing. Although there was sufficient proof in the record and the Respondent's identification in court of her military status, he continued to dispute in bad faith that the Respondent is in the military.
Based on the Court's preliminary finding on June 23 and the Petitioner's unreadiness to proceed with the hearing on July 1, 2004, the Respondent was temporarily restored to possession on July 1.